A. The big tent strategy was developed by
Phillip
Johnson. It's a strategy to avoid alienating young earth
creationists, to convince them to join in the intelligent design
movement, and to agree to put off discussion of what they
consider devicive issues, such as the
interpretation of the Book
of Genesis, and to knight around the effort of the intelligent
design movement.

Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 429, P-429, and
highlight the title and author? And actually, if you could
actually highlight further down which indicates where this
article was first published. Could you read the title into the
record, Dr. Forrest, and the author?

A. Paul Nelson is a young earth creationist who is
one of the founding members of the Wedge. He's been with the
Center for Science and Culture since it was the Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture. He is an integral member of this
group.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, I think this article,
first of all, is written by, as Dr. Forrest testified, an
important member of the intelligent design movement.

This is part of the corpus of intelligent design,
and as Dr. Forrest will explain, gives an extremely valuable
history of intelligent design. It is again a primary source that
is integral to her opinion.

THE COURT: That may be true, but that's not Mr.
Thompson's objection. His objection is, in effect, you're asking
the witness to paraphrase or summarize the article. I'm going to
permit the article. It wasn't a hearsay objection. But why don't
you go to individual passages rather than have her characterize
the article. So the objection is sustained.

A. This is the synopsis of the article. Quote,
Until recently, the majority of active dissenters from
neo-Darwinian naturalistic evolution could be classified as
young-earth, or what I call traditional creationists. Their
dissent could be dismissed as motivated by Biblical literalism,
not scientific evidence.

While this criticism of traditional creationist is
unfair to the actual content of their views, many prominent
creationists are outstanding scientists. The absence of a wider
community of dissent from Darwinism hindered the growth of
scientific alternatives to the naturalistic theory.

Such a wider community now exists in the
intelligent design, ID, movement. Within the past decade, the ID
community has matured around the insights of UC Berkeley
Professor Phillip Johnson whose central insight is that science
must be free to seek the truth, wherever it lies.

The possibility of design, therefore, cannot be
excluded from science. This outlook has deep roots in the history
of western science and is essential to the help of science as a
truth seeking enterprise. Under the canopy of design as an
empirical possibility, however, any number of particular theories
may also be possible, including traditional creationism,
progressive, or old-earth creationism, and theistic
evolution.

Both scientific and scriptural evidence will have
to decide the competition between these theories. The big tent of
ID provides a setting in which that struggle after truth can
occur and from which the secular culture may be influenced, end
quote.

A. Quote, The growth of a broader debate about
evolution and creation can actually be seen as a boon for those
struggling to discern the proper relationship between science and
faith, how to understand the Book of Genesis, and how to defend
the Christian world view in a hostile secular culture.

Life in the big tent of the intelligent design
community certainly requires a period of acclamation, but
Christians, in particular traditional creationists, should
welcome their new ID surroundings.

Q. Based on your reading of this article and Mr.
Nelson's writing, what did you understand him to mean by
traditional creationists?

Q. Is the concept of apologetics a component of
the intelligent design movement?

A. It's a very strong component. In fact, it's
specifically included in the
Wedge Strategy.

Q. And we'll look at that in a little bit. Why
don't you go to the next passage, Matt.

A. Quote, Let's begin with some history. The year
1997 marks a noteworthy turning point in the American debate over
the science and philosophy of origins. In that year, a long
cultural battle that had begun more than a quarter century
earlier with
Henry Morris and
John Whitcomb's classic,
The
Genesis Flood, in 1961 appeared to many onlookers to have come
decisively to an end when the
Edwards v. Aguillard decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court declared creation-science to be a
religious belief, end quote.

Q. Dr. Forrest, I'm going to ask you to read a few
passages that comprise this history. Does the history that Mr.
Nelson sets forth in his article, is it pretty consistent with
the history as you have studied the intelligent design
movement?

A. Quote, In 1982, Federal Judge William Overton
declared the Arkansas balanced treatment law unconstitutional in
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education,
but it was the 1997
Supreme Court opinion, Edwards v. Aguillard, that seemed to shut
the door permanently on creationism, end quote.

A. The two-model approach is -- and this was
actually referred to in the McLean decision as the contrived
dualism. The two-model approach is the view that there are two
possibilities for explaining origins. One is creation-science,
and the other is evolution. The idea there is that, if evolution
can be successfully undermined, creation-science will win the
debate by default.

Q. If you could just go a little slower for Wendy,
that would be helpful. Thanks. I want to go to the next passage,
Matt.

A. Quote, Edwards v. Aguillard seemingly had ended
the public debate over origins. A revolution from an unexpected
quarter, however, was about to occur. In 1997 [sic 1987], Phillip Johnson, a
professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, was
taking a year's sabbatical in London, England.

A. Quote, The creationists in Louisiana never had
a chance. Because of the way science was defined in the debate,
the very possibility of evidence against Darwinian evolution had
been excluded at the outset. Reading the
amicus briefs in Edwards
v. Aguillard, such as that filed by the
National Academy of
Science, the most prestigious group of scientists in the nation,
Johnson discovered that what had been presented on the ground
rules -- as the ground rules of science had tilted the playing
field irrevocably in favor of Darwinian evolution.

In
Darwin on Trial, the influential book that drew
out of his 1987 insights, Johnson wrote, quote, The academy does
define science in such a way that advocates of supernatural
creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the
claims of the scientific establishment, end quote.

Q. And what do you understand Mr. Nelson to mean
by the way science was defined in this debate? How was science
defined, so to speak, in Edwards v. Aguillard?

A. It's defined as naturalistic, remaining within
the area of the natural world and seeking explanations.

A. As Phillip Johnson understood that. Phillip
Johnson considers the definition of science as naturalistic to be
arbitrary and operari and so that it would exclude supernatural
explanations from the very beginning.

Of the 14 participants at the Pajaro Dunes
conference, only three, microbiologist
Siegfried Scherer of the
Technical University of Munich, paleontologist
Kurt Wise of Brian
College, and me, that would be Paul Nelson, could be seen as
traditional creationists, end quote.

Q. And then Mr. Johnson came up with with a new
strategy for arguing for creationism?

A. Yes. Dr. Nelson actually gives Phillip Johnson
credit for reviving the debate. After they thought that the
two-model approach was dead, he gives Johnson credit for reviving
the debate about origins.

Q. His new approach was to try to redefine science
from how the NAS understood?

Q. And then he gathered around him these figures
that are identified here, Behe, Dembski, and Wells, to take up
that project?

A. Yes. As I understand it, this was a conference
that Professor Johnson called in order to do this, to draw these
people together, and begin to execute what would become the Wedge
Strategy.

Q. Matt, could you go to the next passage, please?
And could you highlight the heading of this part of Mr. Nelson's
article? And what is the heading there?

A. This is a subheading in the article. It's God's
Freedom and the Logic of Design.

Q. And could you highlight the passages, Matt,
that Dr. Forrest did in this section?

A. Quote, Johnson saw that allowing for the
possibility of design as special divine action, for instance, God
creating human beings directly, meant that one must also allow
for other possibilities, such as God electing, if he so chose, to
use an evolutionary process that wasn't self-designed.

Quote, I believe, Johnson wrote, that a God exists
who could create out of nothing if he wanted to do so. But he
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead, end Johnson's quote. God could have created everything
in six 24-hour days or not.

The fundamental point is to allow for the
possibility of design. The scientific narrative of design, when
God acted, and how, might capture any number of competing
theories, end quote.

Q. Any doubt about who Mr. Johnson is declaring
the intelligent designer is, according to Mr. Nelson?

A. No. As Dr. Nelson recounts, the designer is
specifically named as God.

A. Quote, The promise of the big tent of ID is to
provide a setting where Christians and others may disagree
amicably and fruitfully about how best to understand the natural
world as well as scripture, end quote.

Q. Are you aware of any other scientific theories
in which understanding of scripture is central to the
enterprise?

Q. Has Mr. Johnson, in addition to the article we
looked at very early in your testimony where he defined
intelligent design as theistic realism, has he written other
articles or books that suggest, that for him intelligent design
is a religious proposition?

A. Yes. This is 1999. This is the text of a speech
that Professor Johnson gave at a conference that was called by
Reverend D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida.
It's an annual conference that Dr. Kennedy calls. It's called the
Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.

A. Quote, To talk of a purposeful or guided
evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow
creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the
Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of
Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end.

It contradicts the idea that we are here because a
creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the
first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning, end
quote.

Q. Does this fairly summarize Mr. Johnson's
opposition to the theory of evolution?

A. Quote, I have built an intellectual movement in
the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is
devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of
questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous
book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's
book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the
scientific world, end quote.

A. Quote, Now the way that I see the logic of our
movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is
that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of
the evidence and the logic is terrible.

When you realize that, the next question that
occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I
preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays,
I don't start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the
beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence,
purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the
materialist scientists are deluding themselves, end quote.

In the epilogue of that book, he argues for
special creation, supernatural creation by a creator beyond the
cosmos. Near the end of that epilogue chapter, he cites someone
named P Fong. That's initial P Fong. And the citation of P Fong
called upon the (inaudible) prologue, which is the first 18
verses of the First Book of John.

A. Quote, But once someone accepts the fact that
random evolution couldn't produce life on earth, it has to have
developed some other way. Quote by Johnson, I look for the best
place to start the search, Mr. Johnson says, and I found it in
the prologue to the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the
word.

And I ask this question, does scientific evidence
tend to support this conclusion or the contrary conclusion of the
materialists that in the beginning were the particles, end
quote.

Q. And is it fair to say, Mr. Johnson starts with
the Book of John and looks for scientific evidence to support
it?

A. Actually, he talks about having -- upon
rejecting natural selection as an explanation, he looked around
for the place to start in finding an alternate explanation. He
says he found it in the Book of John.

Q. Then tried to gather the scientific evidence
that would support it?

A. Quote, Mr. Johnson notes that if we start with
with the Gospel's basic explanation of the meaning of creation,
we see that it is far better supported by scientific
investigation than the contrary.

At this point, we haven't proved the Bible's
claims about creation, but we've removed a powerful obstacle in
the way of such belief. And all I really want to do with the
scientific evidence is to clear away the obstacle that it
presents to a belief that the creator is the God of the Bible,
end quote.

A. Quote, It's a great error Christian leaders and
intellectual leaders have made to think the origin of life, just
one of those things scientists and professors argue about, Mr.
Johnson says. The fundamental question is whether God is real or
imaginary.

The entire way of thinking that underlies
Darwinian evolution assumes that God is out of the picture as any
kind of a real entity. He points out that, it is a very short
step from Darwinism and science to the kind of liberal theology
we find in many of our seminaries that treats the resurrection as
a faith event, something that didn't happen, but was imagined by
the disciples, and assumes that morality is something human
beings may change from time to time as it's convenient to change
it, end quote.

A. Quote, Resistance from some Christians to
intelligent design has been one of Mr. Johnson's biggest
surprises and greatest disappointments. He expected many
scientists to attack him because their careers depend on
Darwinism. This is a quote by Johnson.

The more frustrating thing has been the Christian
leaders and pastors, especially Christian college and seminary
professors. The problem is not just convincing them that the
theory is wrong, but that it makes a difference. What's at stake
isn't just the first chapter of Genesis, but the whole Bible from
beginning to end, and whether or not nature really is all there
is, end quote.

A. Quote, Mr. Johnson explains, Once God is
culturally determined to be imaginary, then God's morality loses
its foundation and withers away. It may stay standing for a
historical moment without a foundation until the winds of change
blow hard enough to knock it over like a cartoon character
staying suspended for an instant after he runs off the cliff. We
are at the end of that period now, end quote.

Q. Fair to say that this is the whole shooting
match for Mr. Johnson? He's challenging evolution because of
God's morality and the truth of the Bible?

A. Yes, he regards the -- he regards evolution as
a threat to the Bible in its entirety and as a threat to the
moral fabric of American culture.

Q. We have one more document associated with Mr.
Johnson. Matt, could you pull up the Exhibit P-379? Can you tell
me what this document is?

A. This is a partial transcript of a speech that
Mr. Johnson made in June of 2001 at a conference in Kansas.

Q. Just before we go on, Kansas is another place
where the evolution creation controversy is quite alive?

A. Quote, It would involve the simple question of
creation. Do you need a creator to do the creating or don't you?
What does the evidence of science tell us about that when it is
viewed without prejudice? Now, of course, that's the tough thing,
isn't it? When it is viewed without prejudice, because you see,
the immediate response will be that the evidence of science is
viewed through the conclusive prejudice that natural causes can
do and did do the whole job. End of story, end quote.

Q. So the prejudice he's complaining about is
methodological naturalism?

A. Quote, This is a way of phrasing the issue that
ought to bring together Protestants of different views,
young-earth believers and the scriptures, old-earthers who
interpret Genesis differently, even the people who take the whole
thing allegorically. Again, they should have a common interest in
the issue. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning God
created. True or false. End quote.

Q. He's trying to situate all of these different
creationists, including the intelligent design creationists
around the Book of John?

Q. What I'd like you to do is, just walk us
through what you considered the important parts of the document
and explain why they're important to your opinion about
intelligent design?

A. Okay. Matt, could I have the first slide,
please? This is the first page of the
Wedge Strategy, and this is
the opening paragraph of it. Quote, The proposition that human
beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock
principles on which western civilization was built.

This is the opening statement, and it states very
well the foundational belief behind the intelligent design
movement and the reason that they have rejected the theory of
evolution. The next slide, please. Quote, Debunking the
traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as
Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not
as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who
inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose
behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces
of biology, chemistry, and environment.

As you can see, Darwin here is bundled with two
other thinkers, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, and there is a
reason for that. Charles Darwin is the one, the scientist whose
theories are the specific target of the intelligent design
movement. And what they are saying here is that, Darwin is a
source of a type of biological determinism which precludes the
existence of a spiritual side of human life and, therefore, takes
away our spiritual dimension.

Karl Marx represents historical determinism.
Sigmund Freud represents psychological determinism. And all of
these thinkers are regarded as materialists who have contributed
to the degradation of western culture.

Next slide, please. Quote, The cultural
consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating.
Materialists deny the existence of objective moral standards
claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such
moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social
sciences, and it still underguards much of modern economics,
political science, psychology, and sociology, end quote.

This is, of course, an objection to materialism.
This is not new. Creationists typically object to materialism.
And it also, they also object to moral relativism, the idea that
moral standards are less than absolute. You can also see here
that they regard the effect of evolution as pervasive have
throughout all of the disciplines, which include the social
sciences as well.

Next slide, please. Quote, Discovery Institute's
Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less
than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies, end
quote. This gives a very good indication of the comprehensive
program that the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and
Culture has instituted.

They would like to completely change the way
science is understood and to completely reverse the effect of
what they call scientific materialism on American culture. And as
they understand it, the only way they can do that is through
renewal, which means basically renewing the religious foundations
of American culture.

Next slide, please. Quote, The center explores how
new developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science raise
serious doubts about scientific materialism and have reopened the
case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature, end quote.
What this indicates is that the intelligent design creationists
are using the developments of modern science and reinterpreting
them in such a way as to support their view that the supernatural
can be a scientific explanation.

I might point out that this was original wording
on an early website, which actually helped me to authenticate
this document. But on that early website, it says, have reopened
the case for the supernatural. It was specifically stated. That
term was used.

Next slide, please. Quote, The center is directed
by Discovery Senior Fellow,
Dr. Stephen Meyer, an associate
professor of philosophy at Whitworth college, end quote.

Q. Can you situate, I know you mentioned Dr. Meyer
already in your testimony, but can you situate him in the
intelligent design movement?

A. He is one of the founders of the Wedge
Strategy. He is one of the very early members of the -- one of
the founding members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and
Culture. Dr. Meyer met Professor Johnson in 1987 when they were
both in England. And Professor Meyer took back a paper that
Professor Johnson had written and introduced it to some of the
other people who were interested in intelligent design.

Q. Did he have thinking to do with the drafting of
Pandas or the writing of Pandas?

A. Yes, he's the co-author of the note to teachers
at the end, along with
Mark Hartwig, who we referred to
earlier.

Q. And as he also written an article called The
God Hypothesis about intelligent design?

A. Next slide, please. This is a representation of
the phases. The Wedge Strategy is to take place in three phase,
which they -- the document says that these phases are roughly,
but not strictly, chronological. Chronologically, this is how
they work.

Phase 1, scientific research, writing and
publicity. Phase 2, publicity and opinion making. Phase 3,
cultural confrontation and renewal. My research shows that they
have really executed virtually every aspect of these phases,
except the first one. Scientific research was supposed to be the
foundation of the Wedge Strategy, but no meaningful scientific
research has been produced.

They have, however, done a great deal of writing
and a great deal of publicity. A very strong component of the
Wedge Strategy is cultivation of the media. The third phrase is,
ultimately their goal is to renew American culture by confronting
secular cultures, scientific materialism.

Q. What did you do to examine the question of
whether they have, in fact, produced science?

A. I researched this on the scientific data bases
that would contain all of the articles published in the peer
review journals.

A. I'll give you an example of -- the biggest data
bay is medline. And I did a key word and subject searches for
peer reviewed articles in science journals using intelligent
design as a biological theory.

Q. Now putting aside the controversy, why doesn't
Dr. Meyer's article qualify as a peer reviewed article presenting
data and research in support of intelligent design?

A. Well, first, Dr. Meyer is not a scientist. He's
not a paleontologist. Second, the article contains no new data.
He presents no new data. He calls it a review essay. What he does
is, review the scientific literature, and he's attempting to
reinterpret it in such a way that it supports his thesis of
intelligent design with respect to the
Cambrian fossils that we
mentioned earlier. That's what this article is about.

Q. And again, reinterpreting the Cambrian record,
he's not doing that from the prospective of an expert in
paleontology?

Q. And, Matt, could you highlight the answers
given by Paul Nelson that Dr. Forrest asked you to highlight? And
can you tell us what Mr. Nelson is talking about here?

A. Would you like me to read that? Yes, this is
Dr. Nelson. Quote, This is in response -- by the way to a
question, so that you'll understand the context of it. The
question was, Is intelligent design just a critique of
evolutionary theory or does it offer more? Does it offer
something that human kind needs to know? This is his answer.
Quote, It offers more, but demonstrating that is going to be a
long-term challenge. Science in the key of design, if you will,
is a melody that we are going to have to teach others to hear and
play.

First, of course, we have to master it ourselves.
Easily, the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to
develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have
such a theory right now, and that's a real problem. Without a
theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research
focus.

Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions
and a handful of notions such as irreducible complexity and
specified complexity, but as yet, no general theory of biological
design, end quote.

Q. Dr. Forrest, the school district and school
board in Dover sent a newsletter to the Dover community which
told the citizens of Dover that intelligent design is a
scientific theory. Is there any way you can reconcile that with
Mr. Nelson's statements?

Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 354? Do you
recognize this document?

A. Yes, that's the key notes -- it's called
Becoming a Disciplined Science, Prospect, Pitfalls, and Reality
Check for ID by William A. Dembski. That is a keynote address
that Dr. Dembski delivered at a conference in October 2002 called
the RAPID Conference. That RAPID is an acronym for Research And
Progress in Intelligent Design. And he is here assessing the
state of intelligent design in this speech.

Q. Matt, could you go to the highlighted passage
to see what Mr. Dembski said about this subject?

A. Quote, Because of ID's outstanding success at
gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is
now lagging behind, end quote.

Q. Consistent with the way you portrayed the Wedge
document, they're moving full steam ahead on cultural
confrontation and publicity, but not so much on scientific
research?

A. Quote, The school board in Dover, Pennsylvania,
however, got it wrong, Meyer said, when it required instruction
in intelligent design. The matter is now in court. Intelligent
design isn't established enough yet for that, Meyer says.

Q. And based on your reading of the article, what
isn't established enough?

Q. This is coming from the director of the science
enter for science and culture?

A. Coming from the director and one of the
founding members of the Wedge.

Q. Why don't we go back to the Wedge, Doctor? And,
Matt, could you highlight the next passage there Dr. Forrest
requested?

A. These are the governing goals. I'll read these.
Quote, To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive
moral, cultural, and political legacies; to replace materialistic
explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and
human beings are created by God. These are the general goals
which are, of course, stated in the opening paragraph of the
opening passages that I read.

They would like to completely reverse what they
regard as the deleterious effects of scientific materialism on
American culture. It's undermining of religion.

A. This is another of their -- I think this is one
of their five year goals. To see -- quote, To see design theory
permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life. It's
pretty clear here that their goal is not scientific, but rather
religious, cultural, moral, and political.

Next slide, please. This is under their five year
objectives. This one says, quote, Ten states begin to rectify
ideological imbalance in their science curricula and include
design theory.

This goal makes it clear that they do want design
theory included in the science curriculum, and, of course, Dover
is an example of that at the local level. Next slide. Another
goal, one of their activities that they list that they intend to
carry out, an important activity is, quote, alliance billing,
recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic
partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups,
educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious
groups, foundations, and media outlets, end quote.

Again, there's a very strong component. One of the
specific goals is to form alliances with churches, which
scientific organizations are not known to do, but you can also
see again that cultivating media outlets is a anothe recurrent
component in the Wedge Strategy.

Next slide. This is a very important goal. It's
the goal of spiritual and cultural renewal, which really
represents phase 3 of the strategy that was entitled Cultural
Confrontation and Renewal. Quote, spiritual and cultural renewal.
Main line renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from
design theory and to repudiate theologies influenced by
materialism.

A. There are movements within some of the main
line churches, for example, in the Presbyterian Church USA in
which a conservative faction within a church is trying to force
it back toward a more conservative, more traditional
understanding of scripture.

A. The next item is major Christian denominations
defend denominations, defend traditional doctrine of creation and
repudiate Darwinism. This is another goal. And they actually did
succeed in getting a statement from the now deceased director of
the Lutheran Church repudiating evolution.

The next goal is seminaries increasingly recognize
and repudiate naturalistic presuppositions. Very strong component
of the Wedge Strategy is to change the way future ministers are
educated in seminaries. They regard seminary education in the
main line denominational seminaries as too accommodating to
modern science.

And then the last goal is positive uptake in
public opinion poles on issues such as sexuality, abortion, and
belief in God. That's a rather amorphous goal. I'm not sure what
their aims are there.

Next slide, please. This is a summary of their
five year strategic plan. Quote, The social consequences of
materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those
consequencess are certainly worth treating. However, we are
convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off
at its source. That source is scientific materialism.

This is precisely our strategy. If we view the
predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy
is intended to function as a wedge that, while relatively small,
can split the trunk when applied at its weakest point. The very
beginning of this strategy, the thin end of the Wedge was Phillip
Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 and Darwinism on
Trial and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating
Darwinism by Opening Minds. Those are Professor Johnson's
books.

Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black
Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum,
broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to
materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called
the theory of intelligent design, ID. Design theory promises to
reverse the stifling dominance of the materialistic's worldview
and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and
theistic convictions, end quote.

A. Next slide, please. Quote, Alongside a focus on
influential opinion makers, we also seek to build up a popular
base of support among our natural constituency, namely
Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics
seminars, end quote.

Again, you see the specific stipulation that their
primary constituency is Christians. They include here
specifically the element of apologetic seminars, which they have
held. Professor Dembski has conducted such seminars. And
apologetics, as I stated earlier, revolves around -- it's the
development of arguments to defend Christianity against what is
perceived as hostile attacks on Christianity.

Q. Dr. Forrest, you obviously, in many of the
writings that you reviewed, that intelligent design, in your
view, is a religious proposition, and that's reflected in the
writings?

A. This is from the last phase, phase 3, which was
entitled Cultural Confrontation and Renewal. Quote, Once our
research and writing have had time to mature, and the public
prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward
direct confrontation with the advocates of materialistic science
through challenge conferences and significant academic
settings.

We will also pursue possible legal assistance in
response to resistance to the integration of design theory into
public school science curricula, end quote. There are two
significant references here.

The first -- several actually. The first is that
they're indicating that they were going to start this third phase
once their scientific research had matured. This third phase
actually began immediately. And one -- an example of the kind of
confrontation we're talking about here is conferences on the
campuses of universities where they appear on the platform with
evolutionary scientists whose materialistic views, as they put
it, they intend to confront. And there have been several of these
conferences.

The other indication here that is significant is
that they specifically state that they intend to integrate design
theory into the public school science curriculum and that they
are anticipating legal problems because they were planning for
legal assistance in that event.

Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in
the intelligent design movement?

A. Yes, he has explained it. As Dr. Wells explains
it, he hasn't -- he had a first Ph.D. in religious studies from
Yale. He also attended the Unification Theological Seminary,
which is the seminary in the Unification Church of which he's a
member, and that church is led by the
Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

A. He has
explained that the Reverend Moon urged
him to go back to school to get a Ph.D. in biology so that he
could, as Dr. Wells puts it in his own words, so that I could
devote my life to destroying Darwinism.

A. Dr. Dembski has a Ph.D. in philosophy, a Ph.D.
in mathematics, and he also has a divinity degree from Princeton
Theological Seminary. He is presently employed at the Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisvile, Kentucky, where he has
the Center for Science and Theology, I believe, is the current
name of it. He has written a number of books about intelligent
design.

Q. Has he ever described his work on the issue of
intelligent design as Christian apologetics?

A. Yes, in fact that's one of the ways in which he
has described it. It's a primary factor in his involvement in the
intelligent design movement. He has described it that way
himself.

A. Yes, there is a book that he edited -- he
co-edited a book with another of his Center for Science and
Culture fellows, J. Wesley Richards. That book is entitled
Unapologetic Apologetics. That is a book of essays, some of which
Dr. Richards and Dr. Dembski wrote.

These essays were written by them and their
classmates when they were students at the Princeton Theological
Seminary, and I believe it was in 2001 that Dr. Dembski edited
these essays and published them as a book entitled
Unapologetic Apologetics.

Q. Has Dr. Dembski written articles and written in
his books about intelligent design in a way that suggests that,
for him, it is a religious proposition?

A. Quote, Dismantling materialism is a good thing.
Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology which
suffocates the human spirit, but in my personal experience, I
found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ.
Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity
again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options,
but Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is
seen as a live option.

The problem with materialism is that it rules out
Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option.
Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should
be viewed as a ground clearing operation that gets rid of the
intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity
from receiving serious consideration.

Q. Is this representative of Dr. Dembski's views
on the purpose for intelligent design?

A. Very much so. In fact, he stated in other
places, most notably in remarks he made to a meeting of the
national religious broadcasters, that the chief obstacle for
people to come to Christ was Darwinian naturalism.

Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 359? Do you
recognize this document?

A. The title is What Every Theologian Should Know
About Creation, Evolution, and Design. Quote, From its inception,
Darwinism posed a challenge to Christian theology. Darwinism
threatened to under the church's understanding of creation and
therewith the understanding of the origin of human life, end
quote.

A. Quote, First off, design is not young-earth
creationism. This is not to say that there are no young-earth
creationists who are also design theorists. Paul Nelson and
Siegfried Scherer come to mind. For the sake of argument, design
theorists are willing tacitly to accept the standard scientific
dates for the origin of the earth and the origin of the universe;
that is, i.e., 4 to 5 billion years for the earth, 10 to 20
billion years for the universe, and reason from there. The point
is that, design theory does not stand or fall with what age one
assigns to the universe, end quote.

Q. Tacit acceptance. Is that the way most of the
scientific community treats the age of the earth?

A. No, the scientific community doesn't hesitate
to acknowledge the age of the earth as several billion years
old.

A. Yes, this is an example of the big tent
strategy in which the desire is not to alienate young-earth
creationists. They simply don't want to discuss the issue of the
age of the earth. They want to defer that until intelligent
design reaches the goals that they have set out.

Q. Matt, could you go to Exhibit 390, please? Do
you recognize this document?

Q. Could you highlight, go to the highlighted
passage? This is on page 22 of the book. Could you highlight
that?

A. Quote, Theism, whether Christian, Jewish, or
Muslim, holds that God by wisdom created the world. The origin of
the world and its subsequent ordering thus result from the
designing activity of an intelligent agent, God.

Naturalism, on the other hand, allows no place for
intelligent agency, except at the end of a blind, purposeless,
material process, end quote.

Q. The tough question is, who is the intelligent
designer? Do we know what Dr. Dembski's answer is?

A. This is a book about intelligent design, and he
has specifically named the intelligent designer as God.

Q. And finally, could you go to Exhibit P-357? Do
you recognize this cover page here?

A. Yes, this is the cover page to the
July/August 1999 issue of Touchstone, a journal of mere Christianity. This
was a special issue devoted exclusively to intelligent design.
This issue was later published as a book called
Signs of Intelligence. And this is the issue five years ago of the
anniversary issue,
July/August, 2004.

Q. Matt, could you go to the cover page of the
article by Dr. Dembski and highlight the title? Could you read
that?

A. The title of Dr. Dembski's article is Signs of
Intelligence, A Primer on the Discernment of Intelligent
Design.

Q. Matt, could you highlight the last paragraph of
the article? Could you read that into the record?

A. This is the last paragraph. Quote, The world is
a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy
was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design, on the other
hand, readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical
reality.

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos
theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory, end quote.

Q. So like Mr. Johnson, William Dembski locates
intelligent design in the Bible in the Book of John?

A. He specifically locates it. He defines it as
beginning with the Book of John.

THE COURT: All right. This would probably be an
appropriate time for us to take our afternoon break, so why don't
we do that. And we'll reassemble at 3:00 to commence cross
examination of this witness. We'll be in recess for 20
minutes.